Policymaker Issue Brief

Transcription

1 Policymaker Issue Brief November 2012 CT Health Insurance Exchange must negotiate on behalf of consumers The promise of the CT Health Insurance Exchange, now in development, is meant to be a fair, transparent market for consumers mandated to buy health coverage. Affordability is key to reducing the number of uninsured state residents and ensuring value for consumers. The federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) conferred a special status on state exchanges, providing generous federal start up resources and a large, guaranteed customer base of federally subsidized consumers. It is estimated that one in ten Connecticut residents will rely on the exchange for coverage i, a larger purchasing pool than any employer group in the state. Like large employers, other state exchanges negotiate with insurers on behalf of members to maximize value and affordability. Termed active purchasing, states including California and Massachusetts use their state exchanges stature and market strength to promote consumer value through insurer competition on price and quality. ii Massachusetts saves millions of dollars for consumers each year by negotiating with insurers. Unfortunately Connecticut s exchange is planning a more passive approach, allowing any plan that meets minimal, elementary requirements under federal law, involving no negotiation with insurers. iii Federal regulations are meant to be a floor, not a ceiling for state exchange standards. The exchange s own researchers found in surveying likely customers that one of the most attractive aspects of the Exchange is that the big insurance companies compete for their business. iv The report found extensive resistance and skepticism about the exchange and insurance in general; one of the only attractive features was competition between plans for a place in the exchange. It was the state legislature s intent that the exchange pursue active purchasing. Governing legislative language was drawn from California s active purchasing statute -- The exchange is authorized and empowered to... limit the number of plans offered, and use selective criteria in determining which plans to offer, through the exchange, provided individuals and employers have an adequate number and selection of choices. v Federal regulators have encouraged state exchanges to foster competition. The Affordable Care Act helps create a competitive private health insurance market through the establishment of Affordable Insurance Exchanges. These State-based, competitive marketplaces, which launch in 2014, will provide millions of Americans and small businesses with one-stop shopping for affordable coverage. vi While Connecticut s exchange staff have left open the possibility that they will negotiate for consumers in future years, we find this very unlikely for a number of reasons. If Connecticut intends to make no improvements in the current system and to do nothing differently, the value of the exchange is unclear. 1 CT Health Policy Project

2 The Benefits of Active Purchasing There is ample evidence that competition and negotiating with insurers reduces costs. Ninety percent of US large employers, including most in Connecticut, use competitive bidding to select health plans for their employees. vii Small businesses, which do not have sufficient market clout to negotiate, pay 18% more than large companies on average. viii Connecticut s exchange is expected to enroll 250,000 to 300,000 state residents ix, more than the state employee or any private plan in the state, well large enough to effectively negotiate on behalf of members. Through competitive bidding, Massachusetts s exchange has kept the rate of premium increase inside their exchange to half the rate in the outside market, saving consumers between $16 and $20 million in FY 2010 alone. x As will be true in Connecticut in 2014, consumers are required to purchase in Massachusetts s exchange to access affordability subsidies. In 2007 Massachusetts s exchange was not satisfied with premium bids offered by any plan. The Governor asked them to go back and sharpen their pencils ; all plans all came back with lower bids. xi The Massachusetts exchange has never excluded an insurer. In fact, the exchange and reforms in Massachusetts attracted a new insurer to the state, the first in almost two decades. The new plan offered lower costs, driving prices even lower for consumers. xii A Massachusetts exchange official explains their success -- We have the same tools any large employer has. xiii In contrast, Utah s exchange includes any qualified plan with very limited qualifications, similar to what Connecticut s exchange is planning. In contrast to Massachusetts s experience, prices are higher inside Utah s exchange than in the outside market. A study found that prices are $60 to $150 per month higher in Utah s exchange than for a comparable product outside the exchange. xiv Not surprisingly, Utah s exchange has attracted very low enrollment. As of October 2012 the exchange had only 7337 members; xv Utah has 396,400 uninsured residents. xvi The lack of standards has also led to a confusing array of 170 plan choices. xvii Notably, without the need for negotiation, Utah s exchange has been managing with only two staff people. xviii Extensive research has found that consumers don t necessarily want the cheapest insurance plan, rather they want the best value for their dollars. xix The exchange can be a powerful tool to improve the quality of insurance plans both inside and outside the exchange. xx Additional standards being considered and adopted by other state exchanges in the interests of consumers include patient satisfaction, timely access to providers, prevention, population health status, requirements to serve underserved areas of the state, better than minimal provider networks, continuity of care, efficiency, community benefits, medical loss ratios, support for patient-centered medical homes, payment reform innovations, wellness incentives, chronic disease management, all payer claims database participation, support for health information technology and exchange, patient safety improvements, overtreatment disincentives, and inclusion of value-based purchasing models. xxi Active purchasing could also help simplify consumer decision-making. When consumers are offered too many options, insurers can use this confusion to improve their market share based only on the number of options rather than value. xxii Research by Massachusetts s exchange found that between six and nine choices was optimal for consumers making clear choices based on meaningful differences between plans. xxiii A recently published study found that in 2009, because of poor and confusing information, only 5.2% of Medicare Part D beneficiaries made the most effective choice for themselves; on average recipients paid $368 more each year than they needed to. xxiv To help consumer decision-making, the 2 CT Health Policy Project

3 federal government now only approves Medicare Part D plans that are substantially different from those currently on the market by the same insurer. xxv Ninety three percent of US large employers are reducing the number of plans they offer. xxvi There are a multitude of additional reasons Connecticut's exchange should actively purchase coverage on behalf of consumers. There is evidence that CBIA s ability to offer a broad range of plans in their private exchange is hampered by their any willing insurer model, rather than partnering selectively with plans willing to innovate in providing value. xxvii The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, that purchases coverage on behalf of eight million Americans, is able to maintain value and control costs through negotiation rather than regulation. xxviii There is evidence that some insurers, especially nonprofits, would welcome competition. xxix Nonprofits may believe they can better compete, as they do not have to generate profits for shareholders. Connecticut does not now have any nonprofit insurers. If the exchange is responding to pressure from current for-profit insurers, xxx they may be making the environment less receptive to new nonprofit entrants, reducing consumer choice and limiting downward pressure on premiums. Current offerings in Connecticut s market barely reach bronze level coverage under the ACA. xxxi The exchange recently adopted a relatively comprehensive essential health benefit package, which may put upward pressure on costs. Connecticut needs to use every tool to keep coverage affordable, including active purchasing. So why don t they want to negotiate? Good question. At the time of writing this, there has been no public discussion or comment on the exchange s plan not to negotiate for consumers. However in private discussions, several arguments have been offered. There is a belief that negotiating could limit consumer choice in the exchange. As stated above, limiting consumer choice competitively based on value and cost is welcomed by consumers. In fact, too many choices are often overwhelming and leads to decisions that are not optimal for consumers and their families. Medicare and most large employers are reducing the number of consumer options, based on value. Plans will not participate in the exchange if they have to compete. This has not been the experience of other states. Massachusetts s active purchaser exchange attracted a new insurer to their market the first in almost two decades. California is now designing an active purchasing exchange and insurers are constructively participating in how that system will be structured. xxxii Connecticut s insurance market may not be competitive enough to support active purchasing. While Connecticut s market, like every state, would benefit from more companies, our market is more competitive than Massachusetts s or the US average. xxxiii We will never know if we can get enough bids if we don t try. Consumers may have to switch plans if one loses out. Uninsured consumers don t currently have insurance plans to switch from, making the issue irrelevant for that population. Consumers are far more concerned about keeping their provider than their health plan. Most providers accept multiple 3 CT Health Policy Project

4 insurance plans. In addition, plans often allow non-participating providers to continue to care for current patients plans often hope to get those providers to join their networks. Losing in a competition for such a large purchasing pool could harm an insurer s business. This concern appears predicated on the best interests of the insurance industry over consumers. A corollary to this concern is that the state has an obligation to prop up lower value plans with consumers dollars. We can implement active purchasing in later years. Connecticut consumers and advocates have been given this promise too many times to count and it never happens. Task force reports go on shelves collecting dust, never implemented. It is unclear what is going to change in the future to make negotiations more attractive to the exchange. Business groups that represent large employers understand the importance of installing prudent purchasing strategies at the beginning or it will be much more difficult to install them later. xxxiv Shifting plans that are not competitive out of the exchange after the first year could be disruptive to consumers, providers and small businesses. The insurance industry is a very strong lobbying force in Connecticut. It is unlikely that if they are able to secure a lucrative, uncompetitive exchange environment initially that they would be willing to allow competition in the future. We don t have time to implement active purchasing. In the earliest conversations with Board members and staff at the inception of Connecticut s exchange, advocates raised this as our priority issue. Connecticut is ahead of all but a handful of states in moving our exchange. Eventually most other states will also begin developing exchanges and it is unlikely that the federal government will tell them they are too late to move forward. Federal regulators have been very clear that they want to work with states as much as possible. A request for flexibility, especially to improve value and control costs, is prudent. Concerns about staff time can be addressed by engaging consultants experienced in getting the best deal for payers. Most large employers contract with seasoned experts to negotiate their health benefits. Detailed information on the risk profile and health needs of the exchange population is not needed to elicit bids from health plans. Subsidized consumers premiums are fixed, regardless of premium costs so the actual cost of coverage is irrelevant to them. Premiums are only one part of consumer costs for coverage copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, and services that are not covered are not fixed. Abandoning active purchasing also ignores the needs of the up to 130,000 unsubsidized consumers and 45,000 employees of small businesses who are expected to shop in the exchange. xxxv It also ignores the potential competitive benefit to the rest of the market of improved value and lower costs. Bottom line Connecticut s exchange needs to use every possible tool to keep premiums affordable, especially as consumers will be legally required to secure coverage. Active purchasing is a powerful tool, proven successful in other states to control costs, improve quality and maximize value. It is foolish to exempt insurers from accountability and to ignore the potential benefits of active purchasing to Connecticut consumers and small businesses. 4 CT Health Policy Project

5 i CT Health Reform by the Numbers, CT Health Policy Project, August 2012 ii Summary of State Exchange Purchasing Models, Connecticut Health Insurance Exchange, October 2012 iii Plan Management Overview, Memorandum to HPB&Q Advisory Committee, CT Health Insurance Exchange, October 2012 iv CT Health Insurance Exchange Consumer Brand Communications Planning and Message Development, Qualitative Phase I Consumer Research Report, Mintz & Hoke, July 2012 v CT PA 11-53, AN ACT ESTABLISHING A STATE HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE vi Affordable Insurance Exchanges, CCIIO, CMS, May 2012 vii Demystifying Active Purchasing: Tools for State Health Insurance Exchanges, Report for the Executive Board of the MD Health Benefit Exchange, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, November 2011 viii For Small Businesses: The Facts on the New Health Care Law, ix CT Health Reform by the Numbers, CT Health Policy Project, August 2012 x Report to the Massachusetts Legislature, Implementation of Health Reform, Fiscal Year 2010, MA Health Connector, November 2010 xi S Corlette and J Volk, Active Purchasing for Health Insurance Exchanges: An Analysis of Options, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, June 2011 xii S Corlette and J Volk, Active Purchasing for Health Insurance Exchanges: An Analysis of Options, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, June 2011; S Corlette, et. al., The Massachusetts and Utah Health Insurance Exchanges: Lessons Learned, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, March 2011 xiii S Corlette and J Volk, Active Purchasing for Health Insurance Exchanges: An Analysis of Options, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, June 2011 xiv S Corlette, et. al., The Massachusetts and Utah Health Insurance Exchanges: Lessons Learned, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, March 2011 xv Avenue H Provides Health Care Access, Choice to Small Businesses, Utah Health Exchange, October 2012 xvi , Kaiser State Health Facts Online xvii S Corlette, et. al., The Massachusetts and Utah Health Insurance Exchanges: Lessons Learned, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, March 2011 xviii S Corlette, et. al., The Massachusetts and Utah Health Insurance Exchanges: Lessons Learned, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, March 2011 xix What s Behind the Door: Consumers Difficulties Selecting Health Plans, Consumers Union, January 2012 xx Business Plan Work Group Final Report and Recommendations, SustiNet Health Care Cabinet, October 2012 xxi Arkansas Qualified Health Plan Management: Open Marketplace vs. Active Purchaser, Report to Arkansas Plan Management Advisory Committee, PCG Health, June 2012; CA Health Benefit Exchange; Demystifying Active Purchasing: Tools for State Health Insurance Exchanges, Report for the Executive Board of the MD Health Benefit Exchange, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, November 2011; MN Health Insurance Exchange xxii What s Behind the Door: Consumers Difficulties Selecting Health Plans, Consumers Union, January 2012; The Evidence Is Clear: Too Many Health Insurance Choices Can Impair, Not Help, Consumer Decision Making, Consumers Union, October 2012 xxiii Health Reform Toolkit Series: Resources from the Massachusetts Experience, Determining Health Benefits Designs to be Offered on a State Health Insurance Exchange, November 2011 xxiv C Zhou and Y Zhang, The Vast Majority of Medicare Part D Beneficiaries Still Don t Choose the Cheapest Plans that Meet their Medication Needs, Health Affairs 31: , October 2012 xxv Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Manual, CMS, February 2010 xxvi Demystifying Active Purchasing: Tools for State Health Insurance Exchanges, Report for the Executive Board of the MD Health Benefit Exchange, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, November 2011 xxvii S Corlette and J Volk, Active Purchasing for Health Insurance Exchanges: An Analysis of Options, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, June 2011 xxviii R Pear, U.S. Set to Sponsor Health Insurance, NY Times, October 27, 2012 xxix S Corlette and J Volk, Active Purchasing for Health Insurance Exchanges: An Analysis of Options, Georgetown Univ Health Policy Institute, June 2011; CA, MD, MA, CO, and MN consumer advocates, personal communication 5 CT Health Policy Project

6 xxx Development of State Exchanges, Jerald Gooden, Aetna, Health Care Working Group, Malloy/Wyman Transition Team, December 2010 xxxi Health Insurance Exchange Planning Report, Report to CT Health Insurance Exchange Board, Mercer, January 2012 xxxii The California Path to Achieving Effective Health Plan Design and Selection and Catalyzing Delivery System Reform, Comments to CA Health Benefit Exchange, May 2012 Stakeholder Input On Key Strategies xxxiii How Competitive are State Insurance Markets?, Kaiser Family Foundation, October 2011 xxxiv The Exchanges as Value Purchasers, Pacific Business Group on Health, June 2012 xxxv CT Health Reform by the Numbers, CT Health Policy Project, August CT Health Policy Project